If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

Originally Posted by dryrunguy

Yes, my interpretation was different.

Pam (et al), would you consider science a religion? After all, if it defines an overarching belief structure, it sounds like a religion to me. Of course, I've also argued that atheism is a religion. (Though no one whats to admit it.)

Dry, I think it's precisely the "leap of faith" that Pam mentions - the belief in the supernatural - that separates religion from other belief systems. Atheism is a set of beliefs without taking that "leap of faith"

Ditto science, although I'm with Pam, in that it is also not a set system of beliefs

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

Originally Posted by tennisbrp

My history: raised catholic through confirmation and basically forced to go to church until I moved out from "under their roof". Rarely went after that and now I never go unless I have to. My brother was an alter boy who was part of the church settlement against James Porter and he has since spent all of his litigation earnings and we taxpayers all pay for his medications and housing as he is a destitute alcoholic deadbeat dad. I am not saying the church or religion caused this because he may as well been the same man without the child rape but who knows what it did to him? He has caused enough harm of his own so I have lost my ability to sympathize/empathize with him. My parents remained loyal to the church as eucharistic ministers and partcipants until my dad's illness and death this April. Their parish priest left a bad taste in my mouth even at the funeral mass. He kept calling my dad "Robert" and he was "Bob" to the entire community and member of the church for 50 plus yrs. Part of his eulogy was about forgiveness and the priest told this bizarre tale of a neighbor forgiving andother neighbor who had molested his son and daughter. It was SERIOUSLY weird and many friends of mine told me how inappropriate they thought the service was at the post celebration and later that week. These tales along with my partner's mother being "born again" and how psychotic she has been vs. us for the past 13 yrs had made religion not very popular with me. So, after digresssing with these personal stories I would say.....

Religion is not for me AT ALL but I respect anyone's right to believe and practice whatever they choose. I took a course in college on Eastern religions and Taoism was probably the closest to what I could relate to with Buddhism a close second. I do not believe in an afterlife, as much as I would like to with my dad and sister dying within 6 weeks of one another this yr. I cannot envision them dancing with the stars together but I know lots of my family does and if they are doing waltzes above then rock on man.

I do agree with Dry that religion bashing is popular but not so sure it is just mostly catholic bashing. I also think that atheism bashing is very popular and a casual conversation in the workplace and/or the last election clearly shows that people will look down on you if you don't believe in God.

I'm very sorry about your brother and about the deaths in your family, tennisbrp!

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

Originally Posted by pamchenko

I didn't read what Drop-shot wrote as belief in God nullifying science at all. I read it as one of the conundrums I also find in religion: so much of our life is built on the application of logic, and yet faith is inherently illogical. That doesn't mean that religious people can't also be proponents of science, it means that very little (if anything) that composes their religious beliefs can be proved by any kind of logic, and yet they still believe it.

It's the proverbial "leap of faith". Those who are religious don't need scientific proof of anything to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or that Mohammed is Allah's only prophet, or Buddha was Enlightened. They believe it on faith. And for some people this leap is unfathomable.

That's how I read Drop-shot. But maybe I'm completely wrong.

Pam you read me completely right.

Originally Posted by dryrunguy

As for science, I was talking about it as a source of ultimate truth, though yes, still a moving and ever-evolving target. All people need some kind of a basic, fundamental belief system. Sometimes that's a particular faith/religion/source of spirituality. In the absence of that, it makes perfect sense to rely on another source for a personal sense of truth. Science makes perfect sense. For me, however, it wouldn't be enough. But that's just me.

This is maybe my biggest argument for not believing in any religion. They were all created to satisfy this need. Necessity is the mother of invention; and the need to understand how things work and answers for other personal issues in the past gave ground to the invention and disemination of religion.

If I'm going to go by faith, I might as well believe in Thor. No religion has any way of proving themselves as the "true" one since none are founded by fact.

Originally Posted by Charlie02123

In my opinion, "The Church" wants to have authority, and lots of it. New and opposing ideas threaten that authority. This isn't a new concept either. Jesus wasn't particularly well received by the religious power figures of his time. That's why when I ask myself "WWJD," which I actually do frequently, the answer I come up with is to openly challenge a lot of reiligous doctrine in a vehement and often angry fashion.

This is why the Church "adapts" and becomes more "modern". To keep some grasp over power (in the form of influence over their followers); not because they inherently believe in the changes that they are making.

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

Originally Posted by Drop-shot

This is why the Church "adapts" and becomes more "modern". To keep some grasp over power (in the form of influence over their followers); not because they inherently believe in the changes that they are making.

It's not like this "Church" (do you mean the Catholic Church or religious authority in general?) gets together every Friday and has marketing meetings over coffee in order to sell more of their "drug" to innocent bystanders. Of course, individual churches and large religious authority bodies do that, but it's not exactly a globally organized process. Of course, clerics want to retain and expand church memberships, but it's not exactly a globally organized process.

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

Originally Posted by mmmm8

It's not like this "Church" (do you mean the Catholic Church or religious authority in general?) gets together every Friday and has marketing meetings over coffee in order to sell more of their "drug" to innocent bystanders. Of course, individual churches and large religious authority bodies do that, but it's not exactly a globally organized process. Of course, clerics want to retain and expand church memberships, but it's not exactly a globally organized process.

I agree that there's no GOP underground bunker where they all get together and plan world domination.
I'm saying it's an adaptation out of need, not conviction.

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

Originally Posted by mmmm8

It's not like this "Church" (do you mean the Catholic Church or religious authority in general gets together every Friday and has marketing meetings over coffee in order to sell more of their "drug" to innocent bystanders. Of course, individual churches and large religious authority bodies do that, but it's not exactly a globally organized process. Of course, clerics want to retain and expand church memberships, but it's not exactly a globally organized process.

I still don't know who we mean by "The Church". That term is usually used to describe either Christianity or Catholicism, or sometimes both, though not in most Christian or Catholic circles. And if there was a centralized body "The Church" plotting and planning the takeover of soceity or politics or the world, then they would never have allowed gay churches to be established, they wouldn't permit the Civil War taking place in the United Methodist Church over gay parishoners and women in clergy positions... There would be a more dictator-like approach to such things.

The only times I'm aware of Christian and Catholic institutions joining forces are on the political front and the social front (e.g., abortion, gay rights, etc., two key issues that drove the establishment of the National Association of Evangelicals, which peaked in the early 1990s but has since struggled for support)... But even then, it's not like all or even most religious institutions within those signed on. Otherwise, they like their fifedoms and separation. If they ever were able to mobilize themselves into a single, power-hungry force, they'd take over the United States, perhaps even the Western Hemisphere. But I don't see that happening as it would require negotiation and a commitment to inclusiveness--not exactly strong suits at most denominational levels.

::

Drop-Shot, two things. First, science has not been able to disprove, for example, Christianity or anyother major religion. Second, there's the issue of personal experience. There have been a few instances in my life where I've experienced something so outlandish, so unbelievable, and so illogical that the most sensible solution was something supernatural. Those don't prove or disprove anything. They're just, well, there.

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

Originally Posted by dryrunguy

::

Drop-Shot, two things. First, science has not been able to disprove, for example, Christianity or anyother major religion. Second, there's the issue of personal experience. There have been a few instances in my life where I've experienced something so outlandish, so unbelievable, and so illogical that the most sensible solution was something supernatural. Those don't prove or disprove anything. They're just, well, there.

It hasn't been able to disprove cause religion is not based on proof. Also I think that science is based on proving that something is as it is because of X cause/fact; rather than disproving things. Sometimes it may look like disproving because it debunks an old explanation with a new one.

I should really look for the Scientific Method and post it.

On another note, I'd be very interested in hearing about your outlandish experiences. I know people, some that think like me that have had such experiences too and this does intrigue me.

However, without knowing what your cases were, lightning and floods were once considered supernatural too. The ancients just found it so illogical that there was no other explanation to them.

During the course of the molestation cases coming to public and just how dire the situation was.....there were MANY individual Parish Priests who openly spoke out STRONGLY on the side of the victims. Many were censured and told to shut up....I don't think that...the "Catholic Church" as a whole was interested in saving face......

I have said before..when things are rotten at the head...they will be rotten all the way down and the responsiblity for this belongs to the head. I think it is more safe to say that the people at the top of the Catholic Church was more interested in saving face, this doesn't mean that...everyone else that composes the catholic church (parish priests even individual bishops etc) were interested in saving face. This was a PAINFUL situation for everyone involved....including the local priests that had to listen to the pain of their parish.

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

For me, when I say "The Church" I am thinking about the top leaders of the American faiths: Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Catholicism etc.

I think of a general sense I get when attending a majority of churches.

I think about an outspoken deacon who no one openly disagrees with or an official who put out a press release or spoke on Larry King.

In my experience, top church officials and a majority of churches are interested in having and keeping authority. A lot of that is well intentioned (wanting "God's authority" to be respected, and believing they have a good idea what God wants), but makes me uncomfortable.

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

For me, when I say "The Church" I am thinking about the top leaders of the American faiths: Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Catholicism etc.

I think of a general sense I get when attending a majority of churches.

I think about an outspoken deacon who no one openly disagrees with or an official who put out a press release or spoke on Larry King.

In my experience, top church officials and a majority of churches are interested in having and keeping authority. A lot of that is well intentioned (wanting "God's authority" to be respected, and believing they have a good idea what God wants), but makes me uncomfortable.

One of my favorite passages from the Bible appears in Romans: "Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been His counselor?"

People speaking on his behalf, supposedly, often forget this... It drives me bonkers. Just as the Bible says that no one will know the day or the hour of the second coming; yet, if you listen to enough Jack Van Impe, it should be sometime next week. One of these weeks, he'll finally get it right. Unless, of course, God waits until a few weeks after he's dead. LOL!

Re: Let's Discuss Religion.

Originally Posted by dryrunguy

One of my favorite passages from the Bible appears in Romans: "Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been His counselor?"

People speaking on his behalf, supposedly, often forget this... It drives me bonkers. Just as the Bible says that no one will know the day or the hour of the second coming; yet, if you listen to enough Jack Van Impe, it should be sometime next week. One of these weeks, he'll finally get it right. Unless, of course, God waits until a few weeks after he's dead. LOL!

This is one of my Pastor's favorite passages also. He is always saying "be careful" "don't go there" etc...to remind us all that we are mere humans and...we DONT know the mind of the Lord.